dark light

Ja Worsley

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 3,659 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Future AEW platform #2031154
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Well if worse comes to worse, England and any other country interested in organic AEW, might want to take a page from Brazil’s books!

    For those not in the know: The Marinah do Brasilia (MdB- Brazilian Navy) have decided to bring their old Trackers out of storage, and equip them with a radar and turboprops (the later via Marsh Aviation, who also did the Argentinian Trackers). Thales has been contracted to install the radar and two mission consols in the fuselage.

    Add to this, the MdB’s interest in using these planes in both the Tanker and COD roles as well and you start to see the MdB really making an effort- I mean if they don’t kill you with weapons, they’ll kill you with laughter!

    India might want to relook at their old Alize’s I mean throw in a PT-6/67C and a Searwater radar and you have a decent AEW platform (if you go along the same lines! The Royal navy could also contend with this idea and bring back the AEW Gannets- how hard could it be?

    I thought just for old times sakes that I’d include some pics of old AEW platforms just so that we could all remember where this role came from as we all know where it is going today :dev2:

    http://bluejacket.com/usn/images/ac/a-e/e-1b_grumman_tracer_vaw12_cva62.jpg
    The Grumman E-1 Tracer (aka Willy Fudd), note the odd shaped radome.

    http://img.tebyan.net/big/1388/01/801241491662172062533623222074247341415085.jpg
    The Dassult Alize AEW (in it’s latter years with Marine National)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Fairey_Gannet_AEW.jpg
    The Fairey Gannet AEW 3

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/AD-4W_VC-12_CV-32.jpg
    The Grumman AD-4W Skyraider AEW Above American service, below British service
    http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/images/skyraider_01.jpg

    Where it all began- The Avenger AEW
    http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/jpgs/grumman%20avenger%20aew/grumman%20avenger%20aew_2.jpg

    in reply to: Future AEW platform #2031653
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    The V-22 costs almost as much as a C-130J though!!!

    It all comes down to capability over cost!
    Sure an Osprey costs the same as a JHerk, but can the JHerk become an organic AEW to a LPH/CVL group?

    As for Badgers comment- made me laugh a little too- well done mate

    in reply to: Future AEW platform #2032153
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    As everyone here knows, I have been watching the development of the V-22 in an AEW/AWACS role for some time now, so please allow me to share what I have come across over the years.

    Firstly: Stan hyd don’t worry about it mate, I too have posted many articles on here that have already been talked about, the problem is that the forum moves rather quickly as news pops up and todays current article soon finds it’s way down on page 22- you weren’t to know. Having said that this is actually a decent topic to talk about and I thank you for bringing it up again!

    Grim901: I too can’t be bothered chasing all the way through pages of posts to find the right topic, especially if the topic has so many replies that it generally looses the original idea of what the person was asking in the first place.

    Now, on to the original topic at hand…

    From my understanding, the RN and the MoD were all for the Merlin being the next AEW bird for the fleet, this had a slightly higher ceiling than the Seaking AEWs http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_H-3_Sea_King_UK_AEW-Mk7_Frontal_lg.jpg who did have a major problem with radar horizons being far too short. The max ceiling a Seaking could attain was 10,000ft with a standard service ceiling of about 7,500- 8,200ft. The Merlin is only marginally better in this area but still no where near what a fixed wing can do.

    Again the problem of pressurization comes into play here and this is what holds back the V-22. Originally I read that the V-22 fitted with a Triangular radar
    http://www21.tok2.com/home/tokorozawa/faq/faq38h11.jpg
    was meant to be pressurized (Note the pic being in RN colours and further note the Tanker version at a lower altitude tanking an F-32). It now seems that this idea has fallen and the Searchwater equipped V-22 TOSS
    http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/14/fb721325-9872-4ead-8e62-c1cbede2394e.Large.jpg
    is the preferred option, this mainly because BAE have a huge stake in the program. As mentioned above, the difference is that the original system allowed a higher ceiling due to the cabin being pressurised, the Searchwater system doesn’t because the radar has to retrieve into the cabin when not in use, preventing any damage to it! At most this system would allow a max level of 15,000ft for operation with normal missions being around 12,000ft.

    The TOSS system allows for only 3x mission consols where the original system allowed up to five. Originally the V-22 was to have been intergrated with a control of UAV/UCAV facility similar to what the Wedgetail AWAC’s is getting, sadly with the TOSS system, this is no longer possible- call it cost cutting by the MoD or what ever, but this loss will bite deep into future intergration with fleet requirements.

    Agreed that if there is a TOSS AEW aircraft, then there is no conversion to other roles- it’s easy for the penny watchers to envision such a system, but realities come into play and as mentioned above- you need dedicated systems! Perhaps what the three B’s are doing (Bell/Boeing/BAE) is getting a firm order before announcing that what is required is impossible and then the MoD will have to order more V-22’s to cover the requirements (purely supposition on my behalf).

    As for the other two roles, it’s not hard to actually combine those, the palletised system could work but with only one drawback in the tanker role, space for fuel. Even with fuel bladders the amount of fuel able to be transported would be very small due to the small size of the cabin- this taking into account the motor reel and associated equipment needed for a tanker role. At best these tankers would be emergency top ups for returning F-35’s who are forced into long holding patterns or (if the CTOL option is taken up on the QE’s) for Bolters- planes that have to go around again and attempt to land on the carrier. The COD option would actually work in well with the Transport option and thus a combined order for COD/Transport/Tankers would make sence and give the bean counters some relief over the bungled AEW order.

    So now the question becomes how many would be needed for the fleet? Accepting that both carriers would never be at sea at the same time (one in refit and the other on patrol), you basically need enough AEWs for one ship (this is how they work out an actual operational plan. So if we take into account all that we have read over the past decade (that being 8-13 V-22 would be needed), you factor in these operational procedures and you actually come out with about 4-5 airframes being needed for both CVFs in the AEW role. It’s actually the other three roles that would have more success in orders.

    The V-22 could be used on HMS Ocean (as previously demonstrated by the USMC), and thus a Commando transport version becomes a factor, For the entire fleet of the RN/RFA, the V-22 orders could then add up to around 30 in total.

    Now as to who else would buy the Ospreys, lets have a look!

    Australia has for a long time been very interested in the program, I seriously doubt that the RAN would get any for the LPH’s that are coming on line soon, but both the AAC and RAAF have looked seriously at this plane as a replacement for the DHC-4 Caribou. Since the program took so long, other ideas and governments decided on various other solutions. But with this current government serious about transport on a tactical level, the V-22 could surface once again, but only for deployment on the LPH’s and thus numbers ordered would be limited to about 10 frames in the conventional role and none in the AEW role- not untill the F-35Bs were ordered at least and then possibly only three would be ordered 9though this is highly doubtful- the RAAF having the Wedgetail seems to opt the RAN out of any AEW purchase).

    Spain is serious about ship to shore support and Italy is becoming serious about it as well, thus these two countries would be best off sharing an order (along similar lines as sharing an order for any F-35s that will be bought). To cover both fleets, I think around 30 could be a good number to share with the balance slightly in favour of Italy. As for AEW varients- probably around four to five each, this allows for one home based for training, one down for deep maintenance, one down for ship board maintenance and the other two flying.

    Japan has long held drawings of it’s Hyuga class with V-22’s aboard- though I have some in my files somewhere, I can’t find any atm on the net to include here. Again Korea is in a similar boat here and thus a shared order would also make sense- but rivalries that go back many centuries would preclude any deal done here. I think Japan would order more of the V-22’s than Korea, so I’d guess Japan would buy about 30 and Korea would buy around 24. Japan is the one more interested here in AEW missions so I’d make a guess that they’d opt for about a dozen airframes and Korean would go for about eight.

    France I doubt would buy any, they value their aero industry a little too much, even if they did finally decide on PA02. As for replacement of the E-2’s, I think that given the high level of interaction between the USN and MN, the French would actually go for E-2D’s rather than AEW V-22s.

    India might be in the running to buy some- their increasing interest in western aircraft seems to hold an option here, but they’d only buy a few (at the most 12) just to work out a value for their service and possibly interact the design with a future plan with Russia. As for the AEW variant, this is more of a possibility especially if the AESA radar variant becomes the preferred choice, in this case I’d see more of these being bought by the IN with possibly 12 being the total number talked about.

    Of course all this is just my interpretation of global events that I have seen and experienced. So don’t go shooting me down- I’m open to discussion not flaming!

    in reply to: Lightning pics #2503660
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Thanks for the help guys, seems getting good burner pics of this classic is about as hard as finding pic of F-5s using their guns

    in reply to: News on India's forth coming Carriers??? #2035353
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    As you request:

    Keel Laying New Indian Carrier

    On 28 February the keel of India’s long awaited Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) was laid. The design and construction of the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier was sanctioned by the Govt. of India in Jan 2003. This is the most complex project, which the Indian Navy has taken up in-house so far. With this project, India has become the 4th nation to join the select club of 40,000 tonne plus carrier designers and builders. The Indigenous Aircraft Carrier designed by Indian Navy’s Design Organization is being built at M/s Cochin Shipyard Limited. It will be capable of operating an aircraft mix of Russian MiG-29K, Ka-31 and the Indian LCA fighter.

    Design of the aircraft carrier has been undertaken by the Directorate of Naval Design (DND) which has over 40 years experience in successfully designing 17 different classes of warships, to which around 90 ships have already been built within the country.

    Source:The Navy Apr-Jun 2009 Vol 71 No.2

    in reply to: Mother ships for LCS? #2035358
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Oh and as a side note Dj, go back and read up on my thread about “Battle Tankers” I think you’ll find that thread a lot more eye opening than your used to!

    in reply to: Mother ships for LCS? #2035387
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Dj: perhaps you don’t understand the concept of what Maersk are offering here, this is not a Super Tanker persay but a military sea lift option based on one of their designs.

    It is fully accredited with all military requirements and can withstand more punishment than most current warships.

    I strongly suggest you read up on this proposal before you go shooting it down!

    in reply to: Mother ships for LCS? #2035390
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    The debate about what ship would serve best as a staging vessel for an LCS strike group would best be answered if there was a clearly defined threat or task as it were. While one vessel may be able to support up to six LCS vessels in one theater- that same vessel would be useless in another situation.

    What you would be looking at is something that has the potential to be flexible just like the LCS ships: either that or have staging bases in key points around the globe- Diego Garcia, Guam places like that! This option can be expencive (especially in the case of Diego Garcia which is not American Territory- they lease it off the British for a sizable amount each year).

    There is one option for a dedicated mother ship for this class of vessel, one that does allow a full range of flexibility, from mid level repairs at sea, right through to rec time for the troops, even fixing the organic air components of the LCS boats:- I refer to the Maersk S Class vessels. (Image below)

    As you can see, these highly modified super tankers could serve a military purpose in a very nice way and would have the sufficient room aboard to allow a squadron of LCS vessels its full range of flexibility in group taskings. They can resupply the squadron with relative ease (both vertically and jack stay), refueling would not be hard either with a simple modification. The only difficulty I can foresee is that of changing mission packs en route, but I am confident that careful planning would see no need for this and should this later become a requirement, a way could be found of doing this (LCS Mk2- using pallet lifts up through the flight deck where a crane could swing out from the mother vessel and off load the current mission package and swing the new one in with it being lowered back down and the flight deck closing over it- there I thought of it).

    Thoughts gentlemen???

    in reply to: Special Tail Navy Hawk #2036451
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    I’ve long fancied the idea of mating the Hawk 200 nose/cockpit and weapon system with the T-45 fuselage to produce a lightweight low cost naval combat aircraft…;):diablo::D

    A Very interesting idea mate and one I too have thought about over the years- perhaps with the AF-1’s and Etendards running out of life down in South America, something of these could be useful as replacements- heck the two seaters are already flying so they only have to develop these right?

    in reply to: Perry Class #2037979
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    The OHP are really very useful and inexpensive ships. They require small crews and best of all. They are already paid for! Better to use them than to send them to buttom as target practice……IMO

    Let’s not forget they are not Aegis Destroyers or Cruisers. The enviroment they would likely be used in is hardly a high threat one…….

    So, alone in a low threat enviroment they make excellent patrol ships. On the other hand if need to operate in a highly contested arena. They would operate with vast more capable AAW Types.

    Hence me saying Scoot old Buddy, that these ships make great USCG vessels.

    in reply to: Perry Class #2038152
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Oh yeah one thing I forgot to mention: Both Spain and Australia, while have the OHP design in service, are slightly modified for local uses.

    Australia’s OHP’s (Adelaide Class), are actually slightly longer than their American counterparts. (6 meters longer)

    Spain’s are shallower and slightly wider for use in the shallower Med waters they operate in (3 meters shallower and 5 meters wider IIRC)

    in reply to: Perry Class #2038154
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    What you guys are forgetting here is that
    A) the Carribean is really restrictive in terms of shipping lanes, having the one armed bandit is a waste of time since you can’t really use these primary weapons in this area. removal of the Mk-13 is actually a good idea to promote the lives of other OHP class vessels still employed on Pacific and Atlantic duties where this system is still fully effective. Also the sale of critical parts of the Mk-13 to other OHP users is a good way to generate money desperately needed in these times to fund other projects- remember, the USN as with the entire American Defence Force are facing funding shortages due to prolonged wars in the middle east.

    B) Without the Missile launcher system, the weight is freed up to accommodate other systems that might also be bulky and weighty- the Firescout trials being noted here. Finally:

    C) Even without the Mk-13 or the RQ-8 systems on board, the OHP’s are still highly effective command and control vessels, ideal for use in the Anti-Drug war currently on going in this area of the world. Which would you rather have on your side- A Tanker vessel (RFA Wave Knight having been deployed there as the RN’s effort due to retasking of the frigate HMS Cumberland, which went to CTF-150 off Somalia instead), that is only armed with .50 Cal guns or an OHP without it’s Mk-13 but still retaining full capability in all other fields of warfare? The Torpedo tubes needing to be retained as the Durg runners now have submarine cargo haulers, the 76mm gun to send warning shots over the bows of susspect vessels- and if nessecary sink them and the close in weapons system as an effective boundary layer device used to sink high speed boats passing under the 3″ guns arch of fire. Finally the .50 cals as the last resort weapon which is also good for close in inspection. Add to all of this, the embarked helo compliment to be basically Eyes in the Sky and you start to realise that the OHP should actually be passed on to the USCG and not sold off!

    Australia did a bad thing is dumping her two OHP’s on the bottom, Customs should have had these tubs which would have made great vessels for that service, much better than Oceanic Viking which is a civilian vessel armed only with 4x .50 cal weapons- not the ideal thing for the tasks required by the Service. Hmmmmm I wonder if there is a person out there that could do a what if of the OHP’s in USCG and Customs colours?

    in reply to: Pics from Work #2038320
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Is the lighthouse a part of the museum or just nearby?

    Part of the museum mate and in the third pic you can see a rather odd looking building that looks like an upside-down top hat on a pole, that’s the control tower for Sydney Harbour (called the Pill because it controls all the berths in Sydney- play on words there).

    in reply to: Perry Class #2038354
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    FF”G”-8 is going to Pakistan after it finishes it’s next deployment.
    Which is sad because they just installed a bunch of equipment to trial Fire Scout on the Perry class.

    What’s the source of this news? I know about the Fire Scout trials, the RAN are looking very closely at the results- they even have observer status in this trial.

    As for the OHP’s being better suited to ASW, that’s a bit of a joke really- these vessels were designed as a “General Purpose” ship, hence the wide range of weapons on it albeit in small numbers! I remember reloading the cans (torpedo tubes)- what a nightmare that was, we’d have to pull a fish up from the middle of the vessel, down the long corridor and out on to the flight deck, then move it down the sides to the tube that needed reloading and it never went smoothly!

    in reply to: Perry Class #2038406
    Ja Worsley
    Participant

    Fed: Mate I can not honestly see any OHP’s going to the PN, though anything can and usually does happen! Sure these ships are old and are great GP vessels, the fact that they are old is what counts them out of the PN inventory.

    The PN are getting 4x new F-22P’s from China which in mission are very similar to the OHP’s, so why would the PN want old ships like these? Sure the Type 21’s are due for replacement soon but I hear they are wanting to build another 4 F-22P’s in their own yards rather than buy from someone else.

    New Zealand was offered our two old OPH’s a few years ago but decided that their money was better spent in Project Protector rather than buying and upgrading old ships.

    Bahrain are interested in getting another OHP, but will the US give them one is the question.

    As for the 5″ on the front- forget it! Look at the weight factor- now if you could cut the weight back to the bone and have a feeder from amid ship- then maybe

Viewing 15 posts - 271 through 285 (of 3,659 total)